This may help get it done. Marchand can't expect to get more than Couture who had a better regular season than he did. He also was good in the play-offs if not quite at the level of Marchand. Posted by huntbri

Exactly. And Marchand would, technically, be getting a bigger raise than Couture, since Couture is making 1.25 mil in the final year of his rookie contract.

This should help. No way that Marchand should be getting more than Couture at this point. Offer him the same contract, remind him that he had 41 points last year, and tell him to get his azz to camp on time.

This should help. No way that Marchand should be getting more than Couture at this point. Offer him the same contract, remind him that he had 41 points last year, and tell him to get his azz to camp on time.Posted by Fletcher1

Who would you rather have; Couture 2 years 5.75 Marchand 2 years 6.6Posted by KennyBizz

Man, this is a tough one.

Marchand has shown the potential to be a game-breaking player (especially in high pressure situations), is a pain in the behind to opposing players, has shown that he has sniping potential, as well as a knack for going to the net and wreaking havoc to create scoring opportunities. Also, he seems to inject energy and adrenaline into his fellow linemates (not to mention the fans). There is a reason why we are having this conversation...Marchand isn't the kind of player any team can afford to lose.

Couture, on the other hand, has a natural goal scoring and offensive inclination. Seems like a smoothe-skating, no-nonsense offensive forward. He definitely has the potential to become an elite NHL-er. How much of his offensive success this year was due to playing WITH San Jose's powerhouse forwards, though? I'm not saying he isn't a highly talented youngster, but San Jose's forwards are very good, and this could have helped inflate his numbers.

Regardless, stats are stats, and Couture had an excellent rookie campaign. He put up higher numbers than Marchand, in the regular season, and he definitely stood out among San Jose's already stellar offense.

I believe, and this might just be my homerism writing, that Marchand accomplished more offensively, considering the more two-way-minded line he was playing on. He was playing on a very defensively sound and responsible line, and still managed to put up very decent rookie numbers. Personally, I would take Marchand over Couture. I believe he brings much more to the table, besides offensive numbers.

However, the Couture salary comparable can still be used in his case...and this could help Chiarelli sign him to a more reasonable salary and term.

One guy had a more spectacular run and played a big part in a Stanley Cup victory, but the other guy had a more complete and effective NHL season. I know we are all still giddy over Marchand's emergence as a force in the Stanley Cup, but over the long haul, streaks and hot spells cool off and players regress back to what they really are.

Couture was a more effective player for a longer period of time last year. Marchand was spectacular in the playoffs and proved to be a clutch player.

I would say there are very even.

But something about Marchand doesn't seem as sustainable to me. You can't be a punk and a pest forever at his size, the refs already seem irritated with him, and it seems questionable how well-liked he is by his teammates. I think Marchand has habits and character issues that will catch up with him eventually. He's gonna have a target on his back and teammates are going to get tried of sticking up for his antics (eg. golf swing). Couture has none of that.

For one playoff series I would take Marchand. For a career I would take Couture.

One guy had a more spectacular run and played a big part in a Stanley Cup victory, but the other guy had a more complete and effective NHL season. I know we are all still giddy over Marchand's emergence as a force in the Stanley Cup, but over the long haul, streaks and hot spells cool off and players regress back to what they really are. Couture was a more effective player for a longer period of time last year. Marchand was spectacular in the playoffs and proved to be a clutch player. I would say there are very even. But something about Marchand doesn't seem as sustainable to me. You can't be a punk and a pest forever at his size, the refs already seem irritated with him, and it seems questionable how well-liked he is by his teammates. I think Marchand has habits and character issues that will catch up with him eventually. He's gonna have a target on his back and teammates are going to get tried of sticking up for his antics (eg. golf swing). Couture has none of that. For one playoff series I would take Marchand. For a career I would take Couture.Posted by Fletcher1

Fletch I hope that Marchand can continue to play his game but learn how to pick his spots, because you have made some really valid points. He may be more talented but an act can get old pretty quickly if he becomes more like Sean Avery. After awhile as you have said, your teammates get sick of sticking up for you. Another example because he was a better hockey player than Avery is Darcy Tucker in Toronto who was known as Sideshow Bob because of his antics. Hopefully Marchand can mature a little, use his skills and pick his spots to agitate.

One guy had a more spectacular run and played a big part in a Stanley Cup victory, but the other guy had a more complete and effective NHL season. I know we are all still giddy over Marchand's emergence as a force in the Stanley Cup, but over the long haul, streaks and hot spells cool off and players regress back to what they really are. Couture was a more effective player for a longer period of time last year. Marchand was spectacular in the playoffs and proved to be a clutch player. I would say there are very even. But something about Marchand doesn't seem as sustainable to me. You can't be a punk and a pest forever at his size, the refs already seem irritated with him, and it seems questionable how well-liked he is by his teammates. I think Marchand has habits and character issues that will catch up with him eventually. He's gonna have a target on his back and teammates are going to get tried of sticking up for his antics (eg. golf swing). Couture has none of that. For one playoff series I would take Marchand. For a career I would take Couture.Posted by Fletcher1

great call fletch. couture is more polished player/goalscorer were marchand is more of the sandpaper, garbage points player who earns every point he gets. two things for me about these 2 players 1. i think the ceilings as players- couture has a higher one(maybe a 40 goal scorer in the future) were i think marchand ceiling is maybe alittle lower due to the nature of his game and playing with bergeron were he has alot of defensive responsibility too. 2. i think that they are just as important to the sharks and bruins respectively. couture is perfect for that up and down western conference style were marchand playing the grind it out eastern conference and the right team in the bruins were there are alot of people right behind him to defend his antics.

Marchand doesn't seem to have a problem sticking up for himself: he fears nobody. Everyone always talks about how he needs to reel in his emotions. The only reason he should do so is to avoid dumb penalties in tight games. Other than that, I love it when the kid gets the team rolling and gets the opponents' minds off the game. It's pretty evident.He's not a dangerous player, taking total cheap shots to threaten a player's career; he just does little stuff that sends a big message. His pull a guy down by his head, hip-check Sedin, and drop the mitts all in two seconds display was one of the greatest acts of agitating I've ever seen. He obviously plays his best when he lets it all go. When he was too concerned about keeping his act together and playing mistake-free, that was when he was slumping, and not scoring a goal for his first 30 NHL games or whatever. After he scored his first goal, he was probably pretty close to the Bruins best scorer.I'm not saying that his ceiling is that high; I don't think his ceiling is as high as Couture. Not even close, actually. But I think that the Bruins should at least match this offer. The intangible things that Marchand brings, mainly energy, gives him the leverage to get a similar offer. If they out-do this offer, it should only be by a hair.

Keep in mind that Marchand started on the 4th line. I wonder what his numbers look like if you take just the games he was with Bergeron/Recchi and stretch it out to 82 games? Probably closer to his playoff production, in which case...to quote john malkovich in Rounders..."Pay that man his money"

Keep in mind that Marchand started on the 4th line. I wonder what his numbers look like if you take just the games he was with Bergeron/Recchi and stretch it out to 82 games? Probably closer to his playoff production, in which case...to quote john malkovich in Rounders..."Pay that man his money"

This should put an end to the lunacy of "Give Marchand $4M/yr".Posted by Not-A-Shot

i agree that its lunacy. marchand should be payed like a teddy purcell(2 x 2.35) and logan couture(2 x 2.9) or even patric hornqvist(3 x 3) but u know that marchands agent goes into the negations using the new contract that a guy like joel ward(4 x 4) just got from Washington.

Couture had 14 points in 18 games in the playoffs. In his first 18 playoff games, Marchand had 12 points. Much like the debate over who is and is not clutch, who knows if Couture would have had a strong finals like Marchand did. Marchand had only one point vs. the Lightning - a drop in production that coincided roughly with Bergeron missing the first two games with a concussion.

When he's on, no doubt Marchand brings things to the table beyond points, and against a team like Vancouver, those qualities can look huge. But when he's not on, many of the same traits can be liabilities, and walking that line means sometimes he falls left, sometimes he falls right. That's why one year - and really, two strong stretches within one year - isn't enough to convince me he's the player we saw in the Finals 82/16.

Couture had 14 points in 18 games in the playoffs. In his first 18 playoff games, Marchand had 12 points. Much like the debate over who is and is not clutch, who knows if Couture would have had a strong finals like Marchand did. Marchand had only one point vs. the Lightning - a drop in production that coincided roughly with Bergeron missing the first two games with a concussion. When he's on, no doubt Marchand brings things to the table beyond points, and against a team like Vancouver, those qualities can look huge. But when he's not on, many of the same traits can be liabilities, and walking that line means sometimes he falls left, sometimes he falls right. That's why one year - and really, two strong stretches within one year - isn't enough to convince me he's the player we saw in the Finals 82/16.Posted by Bookboy007

maybe u know know better book but it seems like a little of a unique situation with marchand right after is first full season he is an rfa. so its tough to compare him even to the guys i mention myself because they all have more games under there belt. the bruins are at somewhat of a disadvantage with marchand only really playing a season and playoff. if he had 2 or 3 years with the same production or a steady climb i think the contact would be already done. do u have any examples of a situation like this book?

Couture had 14 points in 18 games in the playoffs. In his first 18 playoff games, Marchand had 12 points. Much like the debate over who is and is not clutch, who knows if Couture would have had a strong finals like Marchand did. Marchand had only one point vs. the Lightning - a drop in production that coincided roughly with Bergeron missing the first two games with a concussion. When he's on, no doubt Marchand brings things to the table beyond points, and against a team like Vancouver, those qualities can look huge. But when he's not on, many of the same traits can be liabilities, and walking that line means sometimes he falls left, sometimes he falls right. That's why one year - and really, two strong stretches within one year - isn't enough to convince me he's the player we saw in the Finals 82/16.Posted by Bookboy007

Perhaps you should look at how Marchand performed in the 2008 World Junior Championships as well. During the Medal Round when the games mattered most, Marchand scored a goal in every one of those games, including the Gold Medal Game (and in doing so, scored more goals than any other Canadian player during the Medal Round, including Tavares and Stamkos, two of his teamates).

Marchand is an obvious winner and now has a history of excelling on two big occasions; the 2008 WJH Tournament and the 2011 Stanley Cup. Thus I don't think last season was a fluke for Marchand.

Klaas, he was a bit player, but a valuable one, in 2007's WJHC as well. I'm well aware of Marchand's talent for stepping up. I'm also well aware that he was disciplined internally for conduct problems at the WJHC and the Canada Cup. My point here was comparison - Couture had a better regular season and scored more per game in the playoffs through three rounds, so I'd disagree with the idea that Marchand's playoff performance should be rewarded with a bigger deal than Couture's. (Couture still has a year on his old deal, Marchand's an RFA - that might make more of a difference, really.)

Also, none of this really conflicts with the passage you highlighted - I don't think he's a guy who can run like that for an entire season (82 games, 16 wins in the playoffs). He doesn't have to be to be a huge asset and a guy the Bruins want to keep - maybe for a long time - but we're talking about how high you go on his contract.